01/03/2007
John Edwards on Gay Marriage: "I Don't Know the Answer"
QUESTION: "Given that there's so much dissension in the country about gay marriage, what is your view, or what would you tell your gay supporters in the country what your view is on -- not gay marriage in a religious sense, but gay marriage as a civil right and as being able to get a civil license to marry your same sex partner?"
EDWARDS: "Single hardest social issue for me, personally -- and there are lots of them -- but most of the others, I don't have a lot of personal struggle with. I have a lot of personal struggle with this one.... Because the issue is, from my perspective, I think it is right and fair and just in America that men and women who want to live with their partner should be treated with dignity and respect and should have civil rights, as you refer to them. And the question becomes, 'Can you accomplish that through civil unions or partnership recognition and support of partnership benefits? Does that provide the level of dignity and respect that gay Americans are entitled to? Or do you have to cross the bridge into the issue of gay marriage?' I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer. Wish I did..."
More at Daily Kos... (via huffington post)
Posted 11:55 AM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, John Edwards, New Hampshire, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Edwards has my respect.
Posted by: Karim | Jan 3, 2007 12:05:17 PM
he's got my respect and he'll get my vote.
Posted by: Anon1 | Jan 3, 2007 12:06:53 PM
I still don't get the nead for the term "marriage." I'd be more than happy to create a new name for what our union is. How about "merger."
Besides, everyone knows that what the gay community creates ultimately becomes the standard for good taste.
Posted by: T.P. | Jan 3, 2007 12:08:55 PM
Respecting someone for a non-answer. Great.
Posted by: Anita | Jan 3, 2007 12:09:31 PM
I ran Edward's comments through my "political speech" interpreter.
Translation: "Blah, blah, blah, blee, blah."
Posted by: KJ | Jan 3, 2007 12:14:08 PM
Anita, I agree with you. Yet another gutless Democrat.
Posted by: David | Jan 3, 2007 12:14:21 PM
John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he's helped throw a lot of people into it with:
- his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,
- his support for illegal aliens,
- his vote for MFN-China
but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?
well, he voted for them too
About the only think you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator
Posted by: Andy F | Jan 3, 2007 12:18:49 PM
I appreciate the fact the he didn't say something we all wanted him to say.
Posted by: gabe | Jan 3, 2007 12:20:03 PM
Aside from; I just don't like Edwards, I have to agree with T.P. - So don't call it "marriage". I am all for something along the lines of a "Domestic Partner Contract" that would be fair and binding under a court of law (like any other written contract would be). The contract would indicate whome the spouse is, what their role is and what they are partner to. Something to keep all those greedy, bible-thumping grave robbers at bay. Let the hetero's own the word marriage.
"Fabunion" - The joining of two people in civil ceremony under law.
Posted by: Rad | Jan 3, 2007 12:23:13 PM
Ugh. Yet another politican unwilling to simply answer a question and choosing to play it safe by straddling the fence.
I'm sorry you feel such conflict Mr. Edwards. Personally, I will not be conflicted at all in my decision to not support you.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 3, 2007 12:25:09 PM
He did answer the question. Edwards said, "I don't know the answer". That's an answer. It may not be the answer we would like to hear, but it's an answer. He's not pandering to social conservatives and he's not paying lip service to gays. He's struggling with this issue as many Americans are.
I refuse to be cynical about John Edwards, not in January 2007 anyway.
Posted by: Wilz | Jan 3, 2007 12:26:30 PM
Throw away your vote once again by voting for Edwards. How long will it take for people to learn to vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning? (Hillary will eviscerate him.) I thought that the last election showed the beginnings of that realization but I guess I was wrong.
Posted by: rudy | Jan 3, 2007 12:27:57 PM
Let's see how successful a dem candidate will be who is for "gay marriage." Won't happen. I for one support a dem candidate who is electable, a winner, not some loser who's going to turn off the rest of the country. That's why we have dubya in office in the first place.
Posted by: anonymous | Jan 3, 2007 12:29:19 PM
I am amazed at how quickly people will throw their values away all in the name of victory. And Edwards answer is exactly blah blah blah... How come this social issue is the hardest for him to deal with... Look folks our country is founded on the idea of personal freedom, and marriage is one of those rights (although it is not expressly written in the consitution for str8 couples either) and yes we should have Gay marriage or rather marriage for any two consenting adults. Religion has not place in politics.
Posted by: Michael | Jan 3, 2007 12:39:13 PM
"You know, answering that question will hurt my fundraising either way, so I'm going to have to punt. In the meantime, have a nice life..."
Posted by: anon | Jan 3, 2007 12:40:09 PM
I don't think same-gender marriage will be a non-issue when my generation (18-24 yr. olds) gets older... We will have a new generation of religious conservatives, and America is not an extremely progressive judging by history. It took a half of a century for suffragettes to get the right to vote, and that took a shockingly long time. African-Americans and people of color fought very hard to get where they are today. God only knows what we would have done if Martin Luther King, Jr. didn't come along.
What the gay rights movement needs is another Harvey Milk, organization, mass mobilization, Christianization, a focus on family values, a focus on GLBT youth, and guts. We need to march, we need to sit-in, we need to boycott, we need to use mass civil disobedience. We need a social revolution, and until that happens, it's going to be very hard to fight the forces of hatred. This is a very homophobic and heterosexist society, we live in fear of what other people will say when they find out about us.
I live in rural Pennsylvania. The gay rights movement may have made key gains in the cities, but what about the suburbs, thousands of rural counties, and the most hostile of all, the South?
Posted by: julianadotsr | Jan 3, 2007 12:53:01 PM
Who cares? Edwards' campaign is dead on arrival anyway.
Nice decent guy though and might make a fine addition to President Hillary Clinton's cabinet (Sec'y of Health and Human Services?)
Posted by: LightningLad | Jan 3, 2007 1:06:01 PM
JULIANADOTSR, Americans only boycott French products, and the closest most get to a civil demonstration is the storming of WalMart on December 26 (and that's not civil at all, by the looks of it).
Posted by: Wilz | Jan 3, 2007 1:13:12 PM
Currently, I am supporting Edwards even though his winning is not a slam dunk. It troubles me that he is not for marriage equality, but I respect him for his admission that he does not yet have the answer and he continues to work on it. One rarely hears a politician admit that his simply doesn't have the answer It beats the hell out of that double speak that most offer you.
And Lightinglad's comment that Edwards' campaign is dead on arrival is erroneous. His launch has been praised across the board, and if you check the polls from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, you will see that he leads in most of them. Those are the first three primaries/caucuses, and if he does well in those, the momentum will be his.
Posted by: Kyle Childress | Jan 3, 2007 1:15:27 PM
I don't think Edwards has any chance of winning the nomination, let alone the Presidency. That said, I respect someone who's willing to admit that they don't have all the answers. Personally, I think the country would be better off if we completely separated religious marriage from civil recognition of relationships. But at the same time, I think you'll find a lot of people who have a hard time reconciling their traditional notions of marriage with understanding that people deserve to be treated equally. This will become less and less of an issue over time -- we need to be willing to move forward as best we can right now and continue to encourage acceptance in society, rather than getting hung up if we don't get everything done right away.
Posted by: Marc | Jan 3, 2007 1:16:51 PM
His answer is the best answer I have heard yet. He is being honest. He is saying he doesn't know. I will vote for Hilary but at least he was honest and just plainly said I don't know. It is a hard quesiton for some to answer. When you bring the word marriage into the equation you bring religion in it and everyone goes crazy. As the saying goes, never mix religion with politics.
Posted by: PleaseThink | Jan 3, 2007 1:20:00 PM
Pleasethink, he may be saying he doesn't know, but he isn't being honest.
Posted by: Anita | Jan 3, 2007 1:23:03 PM
Sen. Edwards, the answer is very simple:
"Yes, I support the right of same-sex couples to marry and to enjoy the protections and responsibilities that legal recognition brings to their relationships."
It isn't about "approving" of homosexuality. It isn't about "promoting" a "lifestyle". It is about fairness and equal protection under the law.
Democrats must stop pussyfooting and stand up for equality for ALL Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.
Posted by: Jonathon | Jan 3, 2007 1:23:46 PM
SHHH ... dont tell anyone but politics is a game and that is the most any politician can say right now and be elected President... ignorance and christianism is running rampant in America. Support Edwards. Support Civil Unions. Elected Edwards. Get Civil Unions. THEN PUSH for Civil Marriage. PS I am one half of the 8500 LEGALLY MARRIED GAY COUPLES IN MA - I promise you the word does not make a difference if you get nothing at all.
Posted by: RJP3 | Jan 3, 2007 1:31:43 PM
Well said, Jonathon. I'm in total agreement. We are losing these marriage amendment battles because we aren't quite sold on gay marriage ourselves... let's be honest. Until we gay and lesbian folks can get to the point where we actually BELIEVE that we're deserving of marriage recognition, then we won't get anywhere with this issue.
I'm not a zealot when it comes to marriage vs. civil union, but I will say that "separate but equal" has never worked well in the past.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 3, 2007 1:35:32 PM